Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-09


suit because they would have no fee "a
pay WAS the very crime which the law
was enacted to prevent.
NEITHER oLD-PAsHoNED NOR OBSOLETE.
To say that the law was old-fashioned
and obsolete could not affect the Gus.
tom, Mr.. Meredith contended, because
rit was not true in fact, as there were
American decisions rendered within the
last fifty years at least upholding the
crimes of barratry and champerty as
punishable offences.
On the point that Mr. Royals de-
fence that he was employed by the
English bondholders was not defence
for taking the suits of third parties,
Mr.. Meredith dwelt at length on the
case of Marye rs. Parsons, III United
States Reports, and showed under that
very decision that the English bond
holders, when they put their coupons
on the market and sold them. lost all
interest in the contract and the right
to demand its performance, and they
and their attorney were mere inter
meddlers.
TIE POINT OF UNCONSTITUTTONALITY
The argument that the law was un-
constitutional because it was mixed up
with other laws which defendant claims
were unconstitutional, Mr.. Meredith
said he was sure would have no weight
with this court. 1t was needless for
him TO cite authorities that court
would only hold law unconstitutional
upon the plainest and clearest evidence,
and to ask the Court to draw the infer
ence that this law was unconstitutional
because defendant claimed that it was
part of a scheme to destroy the validity
OF The coupons was n reason which had
been declared insufficient by the Su-
preme Court of the United States. Cou-
pOn-Killer No. /, it had been argued,
was unconstitutional for the same rea-
son, and yet that law had been sus-
tanned by the Supreme Court of the
United States. The license law. which
was also stated 10y defendant to be a
part OF this scheme to destroy the validity
of coupons, had been lately declared con
stitutional by the Supreme Court of
Virginia, and if there was any infer
ence to be drawn from these facts it.
was that this barratry law was likewise
constitutional; but the Court would
examine the law itself and rest its CON
stitutionality upon the language Of the
law.
Mr.. Meredith therefore moved the
court to reject the plea Of defendant.
MIR. ROYALL II HIS OWN DEFENCE.
After Mr.. Meredith closed Mr.. Royal
opened for the defence. He delivered
= vigorous speech, in which he made
the following points: That it was put
ting the cart before the horse to say
that the bondholders stirred mp strife. |
1t was the State that made suits neces-
sary, and the bondholders only took |
care of suits that the State forced on |
them; that when the State made her |
coupon contract she necessarily made |
an implied contract that if she made q |
lawsuit necessary to make the coupon |
Of any value the coupon-holder should |
have the night tOthe benefit of n lawyer |
to conduct that lawsuit and the coupon
cannot be used except by lawsuit
Mr.. Royal also argued that the bar
ratry act was, in substance, an attack
upon the legal profession. If it was
valid, then no lawyer could practice his
profession i'll Virginia; no lawyer could
possibly advise clients, according TO
customary usage. under that statute.
Mr. $. ID. Davies, as associate Of Mr..
Royal, next followed in brief areu-
nent. He was followed by Mr.. Mere
iith; after which the case was submit
cd.
DECISION NEXT MONDAY.
Judge Atkins said he would take the
ase under consideration and render
us decision next Monday.
TIE CASE or INTIMIDATION.
1t was the intention of Mr.. Witt.
'ommonwealth's Attorney, to file in
yesterday against Mr.. Royal
Of lntimidating the grand jury, but hc
the action until to-day III
rder to perfect the paper.
No action has been taken in the way
f proceeding against Mr.. Royal for